Re: PostgreSQL in the press again

On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 19:00, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> >>> What are the other solutions?
> >>
> >> Mammoth Replicator, and whatever is happening with eRServer these
> >> days...
> >
> > dbMirror is still quite popular. This is partly because it is better suited
> > for "very slow replication", e.g. replication via FTP server once per day, a
> > la MusicBrainz.
> >
> > Both pgPool and C-JDBC offer synchronous query distribution based MM
> > replication, although at the present time neither is transaction-safe. When
> > we get XA, C-JDBC will become a very viable alternative.
> >
> > The issue talking with the press is that you need to communicate to them that
> > "Replication" is a general programming topic, and NOT a single task, just
> > like "database" is. Nobody in the industry would expect to use the same
> > database for all purposes; neither would anyone expect to use the same
> > replication tool for all purposes. The reason you get this question all the
> > time is:
> > 1) Many DBMSs (SQL Server, MySQL) support only one replication tool;
> > 2) reporters have no clear idea what "replication" is.
> >
> > Personally, I'd answer:
> >
> > "Slony-I is undoubtedly our most popular replication tool. It supports
> > Master-Slave High Availability Replication. However, there are a number of
> > other solutions, such as dbMirror, eRServer, pgPool, C-JDBC, and the
> > proprietary Mammoth Replicator, all of which are in wide use because they
> > solve different replication problems than Slony-I does. Replication is not a
> > single solution for a single problem; it is several solutions for a wide
> > array of different problems. That's why no one replication tool will ever be
> > the "default" replication for PostgreSQL."
>
> This answer almost sounds perfect for inclusion into the FAQ itself ...
>

Agreed.

> That's why no one replication tool will ever be
> > the "default" replication for PostgreSQL."
>

Externally, everybody thinks that there should be just one, just like
there is for other databases. That was the feedback from various
PostgreSQL reference sites and that's why I was asked the question.

Anyway, trying to summarise these things for PR soundbites is hard and
I'll just have to put up with everybody thinking I know jack. :-)

Here's the link just now...

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39173013,00.htm

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs